[RPKI] deep dive on manifest handling (Was: APNIC had an unexpected drop in VRP 00:00 - 02:00)

Tim Bruijnzeels tim at nlnetlabs.nl
Thu Dec 3 09:24:41 UTC 2020


> On 2 Dec 2020, at 22:33, Job Snijders via RPKI <rpki at lists.nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
> I propose some of us continue discussion at sidrops at ietf.org where
> through wordsmithing in the draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis effort so we help
> any future RPKI implementers from walking into the same problem.


We are perfectly fine with changing routinator's behaviour. The current implementation reflects our interpretation of the draft text, and recent sidrops discussions (e.g. it seems that over-claiming CA certificates should lead to a publication point being considered entirely invalid). So, there is ambiguity in the bis draft that needs to be addressed.

I would like to add that on the one hand it's probably good that this happened while the -bis is still in *draft*, because it gives us all an opportunity to remove ambiguity before its publication as an RFC. On the other hand, this is what you get when implementers are requested to make changes based on drafts.


More information about the RPKI mailing list